We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/psychometrika.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
When analyzing scaling conditions in latent variable structural equation models (SEMs) with continuous observed variables, analysts scaling a latent variable typically set the factor loading of one indicator to one and either set its intercept to zero or the mean of its latent variable to zero. When binary and ordinal observed variables are part of SEMs, the identification and scaling choices are more varied and multifaceted. Longitudinal data further complicate this. In SEM software, such as lavaan and Mplus, fixing the underlying variables’ variances or the error variances to one are two primary scaling conventions. As demonstrated in this paper, choosing between these constraints can significantly impact longitudinal analysis, affecting model fit, degrees of freedom, and assumptions about the dynamic process and error structure. We explore alternative parameterizations and conditions of model equivalence with categorical repeated measures.
Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, we empirically explore how different parameterizations lead to varying conclusions in longitudinal categorical analysis. More specifically, we provide insights into the specifications of the autoregressive latent trajectory model and its special cases—the linear growth curve and first-order autoregressive models—for categorical repeated measures. These findings have broader implications for a wide range of longitudinal models.
Despite the versatility of generalized linear mixed models in handling complex experimental designs, they often suffer from misspecification and convergence problems. This makes inference on the values of coefficients problematic. In addition, the researcher’s choice of random and fixed effects directly affects statistical inference correctness. To address these challenges, we propose a robust extension of the “two-stage summary statistics” approach using sign-flipping transformations of the score statistic in the second stage. Our approach efficiently handles within-variance structure and heteroscedasticity, ensuring accurate regression coefficient testing for 2-level hierarchical data structures. The approach is illustrated by analyzing the reduction of health issues over time for newly adopted children. The model is characterized by a binomial response with unbalanced frequencies and several categorical and continuous predictors. The proposed approach efficiently deals with critical problems related to longitudinal nonlinear models, surpassing common statistical approaches such as generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models.
Establishing the effectiveness of treatments for psychopathology requires accurate models of its progression over time and the factors that impact it. Longitudinal data is however fraught with missingness, hindering accurate modeling. We re-analyse data on schizophrenia severity in a clinical trial using hidden Markov models (HMMs). We consider missing data in HMMs with a focus on situations where data is missing not at random (MNAR) and missingness depends on the latent states, allowing symptom severity to indirectly impact probability of missingness. In simulations, we show that including a submodel for state-dependent missingness reduces bias when data is MNAR and state-dependent, whilst not reducing accuracy when data is missing-at-random (MAR). When missingness depends on time, a model that allows missingness to be both state- and time-dependent is unbiased. Overall, these results show that modelling missingness as state-dependent and including relevant covariates is a useful strategy in applications of HMMs to time-series with missing data. Applying the model to data from a clinical trial, we find that drop-out is more likely for patients with less severe symptoms, which may lead to a biased assessment of treatment effectiveness.